AGRIMA LAILER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner appeared on 10.05.2015 in the Common Law Admission Test -2015 (hereinafter referred to as the "CLAT -2015") held at Patiala. She allegedly secured 91.5 marks and her All India Rank was 718. It is alleged that the respondents displayed the answer key with question papers on their website and as per the petitioner, there were discrepancies in the answer keys of about 30 questions. She made two online representations for correcting the errors but the respondents cancelled only two questions and awarded marks against question No. 35 and 186. In view of the aforesaid correction, the ranking of the petitioner was revised from 718 to 693. It is, therefore, prayed in the petition that the examination held on 10.05.2015 may be cancelled and an independent expert may be appointed to look into the accuracy of all the questions and answers of the CLAT -2015. In the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 3 to 5, it is alleged that the present petition is not maintainable before this Court on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction as the CLAT -2015 was got conducted by the Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow; the application forms were submitted and received at Lucknow; the result was declared at Lucknow and all the fees etc. were also paid at Lucknow. It is further alleged that the petitioner was granted admission on 27.06.2015 in the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala, pursuant to publication of 3rd allotment list on 21.06.2015. However, the petitioner exercised her option for up -gradation of her preference of the Law Institute as in the list of Universities, the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala is at Sr. No. 9, whereas the Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur is at Sr. No. 7. The petitioner was allotted the Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur, in the 4th and final allotment list issued on 01.07.2015, where she took admission on 06.07.2015 and after her exit from the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala, the seat vacated by her was allotted to the next student, who is not a party to the present writ petition.

(2.) It is further alleged that after declaration of the result, certain complaints were received (none from the petitioner) regarding certain questions/answers and keeping in view the larger common interest of the candidates, some of these questions were referred to the panel of experts, upon which certain disputed questions were got reviewed from the experts and except two questions [Question No. 35 (ID 1744) and Question No. 186 (ID 1907)], all other questions were found to be correct. Question No. 35 was recalled and one mark was given to all the candidates. In Question No. 186, since two answers ('C & 'D') were identical, therefore, one mark was given to all those candidates who had opted either option 'C or 'D'.

(3.) It is further alleged that similar issue with regard to correctness of the 30 questions/answers was also raised before the Bombay High Court in the case of "Mr. Subham Dutt v/s. The Convenor, CLAT 2015 (UG) Exam and others", Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 1784 of 2015, decided by on 02.07.2015 and the said writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench with the following order : -